How can an alleged law scholar respond to the Supreme Court of our nation by ignoring their rulings, or essentially finding other ways around what they have decreed as legal?

The court struck down three of the four provisions in Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law, but upheld a key provision which allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop. Clearly, the Obama administration was not pleased with the Supreme Court ruling, which makes me believe it may have been more of a victory than was assumed at first glance. And being not pleased, the administration does what it tends to do when they don’t get their own way – they reverted to a child-like petulant nature.

The Department of Homeland Security has announced that they are discontinuing agreements made with Arizona police to enforce federal immigration laws. In other words, they pouted, stomped their feet, took their ball and went home.

Additionally, the DHS is limiting resources to a state police force trying to enforce a federal law that the federal government wasn’t enforcing in the first place. Presumably, they would be continuing this program had the Supreme Court struck down the entire law, leaving only one interpretation – Obama is only willing to enforce a law if he agrees with it.

This is a stunningly amateurish temper tantrum of a response to the Supreme Court’s decree that police officer’s can check the immigration status of people in the process of breaking the law. And it leads to the question, with this and the administration’s adamant opposition to voter ID laws, why is President Obama so protective of people that are willing to break the law?

Oh yes – votes. Democrats have the market cornered when it comes to illegal votes.

“As though we needed any more evidence, President Obama has demonstrated anew his utter disregard for the safety and security of the Arizona people. Within the last two hours, I have been notified the Obama administration has revoked the 287(g) agreement under the authority of which Arizona law enforcement officers have partnered with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration law.

“Of course, it is no coincidence that this announcement comes immediately on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling upholding the constitutionality of the heart of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law: SB 1070. It’s worth noting that 68 law enforcement entities in 24 states have functioning 287(g) agreements with the federal government. But it appears the only agreements eliminated today were those in Arizona, the state that happens to be on the front lines of America’s fight against illegal immigration. We are on our own, apparently.

“I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. The Obama administration has fought the people of Arizona at every turn – downplaying the threat that a porous border poses to our citizens, filing suit in order to block our State from protecting itself, unilaterally granting immunity to tens of thousands of illegal aliens living in our midst, and now this. Still, the disarmament of Arizona’s 287(g) agreements is a new low, even for this administration.

It seems like on a nearly daily basis, we are discussing how the Obama administration has managed to hit a new low. At some point, you’d think the President would hit the bottom of the barrel, but he simply keeps breaking through and digging even deeper.

Will the President find a way to circumvent the law again if the Supreme Court strikes down his signature achievement on Thursday?

Brewer points out why the actions of this President need to be taken very seriously:

“The President’s action should be of concern to all Americans. This fight is not over. President Obama may disregard Congress. He may target individual states like Arizona. He may generally act with impunity. But he is not above judgment – and the American people will have theirs very soon.”

Will you continue to stand for this America? Four more years of this imperial Presidency?

The Supreme Court has upheld a provision in the Arizona Immigration Law known as SB 1070, which allows police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop.

A majority of other provisions in the law were struck down, cited as an intrusion on the federal governments enforcement of immigration.

The Wall Street Journal explains the other provisions which were overturned.

The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense. Those other three provisions were struck down.

Shane at Caffeinated Thoughts has a copy of the decision, and states in regards to the immigration check victory, the reason the police immigration status check was upheld is because the Court didn’t believe it interfered with the “federal immigration scheme.”

This gives the decision an even greater feeling of being a hollow victory of sorts. What good is checking the immigration status of those stopped for breaking the law, if it is only reported to the federal government who just recently were instructed to halt deportations of some 800,000 illegal immigrants?

On the plus side, the “show me your papers” provision was the most controversial, as well as the most widely debated and generally understood aspect of the law.